Talk:Vel'Koz/@comment-9048637-20151108223258/@comment-9048637-20151122043212
"I clearly had to define it for you since you were calling those "free" stats when they weren't. Congrats..?" I told you what I meant by "free" stats in this case. I meant they were stats you don't have to spend gold on. I then allowed you that they still have an opportunity cost attached, but denied that it was relevant to the specific point I was making at the time. Again, read what I actually say. "Finish reading the sentence. I said, '"Flat AP or MPEN typically being worth more than scaling CDR until a certain point".'' Your scaling CDR runes do nothing for you OR your adc in the early game. They're completely selfish runes that require someone carrying you to level 18. A player with equal skill and early game runes should win early game and snowball their bot. Flat AP quints, like I said, are one of the most efficient early runes. That is why they're run by pretty much every AP mid." Stop banging on about support. I've told you I'm not talking about support Vel'Koz. I'm talking only about mid Vel'Koz. And yes, I know AP quints are standard at the moment, but I hold that they're less effective on Vel'Koz than on other mids. You can't just talk about what runes are "efficient", you have to look at what they're actually giving you. This is the exact problem with gold efficiency as a concept, which you claim to depise. Speaking of... "You... brought.. up... gold... value... for .. runes... Face meet palm." No, I didn't. The supposedly damning quote you're bringing up was me referring to the fact that stats from runes and masteries are stats that are independent of your gold income in-game, hence when your gold income is low, they constitute a greater proportion of your overall stats. Which was tangential to my overall point, but whatever. "Then lets do the math. At level one, Velkoz's Q does 80 + 60% AP. So with your scaling CDR runes, Velkoz will do 80 dmg. With flat AP quints, Velkoz will do 80 dmg + flat ap from quints. Oh darnnn! " Now, I try to be polite, but this point is just completely asinine. Of course if you're comparing the damage from one ability cast, AP is going to work out as more than CDR because CDR is about letting you cast said abilities more frequently. And of course, you're again insisting on focusing entirely on early game when my point is that I feel Vel'Koz can sacrifice some early game power in return for mid to late game power. If I wanted a pick to bully mid lane, I'll pick LeBlanc. I'll pick Talon. I pick Vel'Koz because I want to have a big impact in teamfights. Hence I build to maximise that. Nor do I feel that the early game power I'm sacrificing (which isn't as much as you're making it out to be here) is not going to risk me getting shut down because Vel'Koz is a very safe laner. Hell, if you're worried about him being shut down you should be arguing for him running MR blues. I don't see you doing that. Now as for AP quints versus Mpen: I run Mpen because that maximises my ult damage in teamfights. It also works out as better for your basic abilities as they level and once you have AP. Yes, your rank 1 abilities take a hit. But on mid Vel'Koz, I feel that's a wortwhile trade off. And for the last time, I am only talking about mid Vel'Koz. So you can stop banging on about "selfish choices" like it's some kind of worthwhile point. Of course I'm going to be selfish. My team wants me to be selfish, I'm their AP carry. Are you going to start ragging on ADCs for buying all these 'selfish' damage items like Infinity Edge, running those 'selfish' AD reds to help with their last hitting? "Geez. Do you even read what you post? You're saying Velkoz doesn't have mana problems but he does go out of mana if you play him with the most popular item that pros use on him." I said it is possible in edge cases to OOM yourself with a Morello's. I'm talking about minute-long sieges where you don't have blue buff or an elixir here. It's possible, but it's not likely. I just like to recognize such possibilities when I'm making my points because it feels intellectually honest. "I don't care if you invented it on the spot or not - it's a dumb argument. The final result is still the exact same amount of CDR. By you changing the frame of reference, you're trying to make your case more appealing when it's still the same shit at the end of the day. I could do the opposite and say something like, "''After buying your amplifying tome, you've increased your AP from 0 to 20! That's an '''infinite increase'. Buying anymore AP would not be efficient because you cannot achieve the same increase.''" If every 10% CDR reduced the CD by 1 second then 20% CDR will reduce it by 2 seconds. Just because you change the frame of reference from the total cooldown to the reduced cooldown value it doesn't change how much the CDR value reduces." Yes, but the value is worth more relative to where you currently are. I'm not sure how I can put this any better. When you get your first 50% CDR, you can cast 50% more spells. When you get the next 50%, you cast an infinite number more spells, other gating mechanisms like mana and cast times allowed for. Or, to cut to the chase, you can kill your enemies an infinite amount faster (if somehow you could cast an infinite number of spells with no cast time and the mana to cast them, your enemies would be dead immediately). Your counter-example isn't actually completely wrong. It's something called diminishing returns, which affect statistics that, unlike CDR, don't scale cumulatively - such as AP. Of course, it would be wrong to conclude from this that you shouldn't buy more AP after your first point - that part's just silly. But the more AP you buy, the less you're getting relative to what you currently have. This is why Rabadon's Deathcap has its multiplier: it's an artifical cumulative scaling. "Congrats! You made up an extreme case that doesn't exist in the game to try to prove your point." It's an extreme example to illustrate a point that is nevertheless true in less extreme examples. Appeal to extremes is only a fallacy when you can demonstrate that the extreme example is somehow breaking the rules under which the less extreme example operates. You've given me no such demonstration here. You've just thrown a fallacy at me as a substitute for an actual argument. "You know about fallacies right?" You know reductio ad absurdum isn't a fallacy, right? It's tried and tested form of argumentation; Socrates was particularly fond of it. You accuse me of not reading my own points; you don't seem to read your own links. As for who's being an "egomanical little prick": I feel that that description suits you far better. I came into this thread making putting my point across calmly and politely; you responded by insulting me when you took exception to me disagreeing with you. If anyone's thinking with their pride here, I don't think it's me. Yes, I've given a little back since in terms of the sarcasm. I feel I'm warranted after how you've behaved. I also feel I could have been far more rude under the circumstances. Also, if your best argument is "I'm plat, you're wrong", then personally I consider that you've already lost. Having a high rank entitles you to a certain respect, yes, but it doesn't mean you're automatically right. Come to think of it, I think there's a fallacy to describe that...